• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Teen dies after falling over 594 feet waterfall.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Theb said:
It does give the sign a little more punch.

na-pali-coast.jpg
Click to expand...

close to 100, just need a few more sacrifices.
 
At 19 I can somewhat understand.

If he was over age 30 I'd be more inclined to be a harsher judge.

Real tragedy is for his family, love to them.
 
I've been there and vividl recall the "you will die" part of the sign.

I have walked as close to the falls as I could get, took one look over the edge and confirmed that one would die from that fall.

Nonetheless, whenever we were there, there were always some teenagers in the water near the falls.

MotionMan
 
Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background. Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against!

The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.
 
Mark R said:
Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background.

Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against! The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.
Click to expand...

Interesting analysis. I'm more inclined to read wordy signs, but I could see it being a problem for some, especially foreigners.
 
Mark R said:
Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background. Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against!

The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.
Click to expand...
What sign are you referring to? The one in the OP has an image of a person about to fall over the waterfalls, trying to hold on to dear life, while I'm guessing the two people that are "happily playing" are actually screaming bloody murder.
 
Saint Nick said:
What sign are you referring to? The one in the OP has an image of a person about to fall over the waterfalls, holding on to dear life, while I'm guessing the two people that are "happily playing" are actually screaming bloody murder.
Click to expand...
LOL. I thought that the person about to die was a rock.

Guess I only "skimmed" the picture.
 
Mark R said:
Tragic case.

That sign is, however, very interesting - and I might use that photograph in my next lecture on "dangers of mis-communication".

The text on the sign, is brutally clear - "you will die", etc.

However, the overall sign says something completely different. It is not in the format that most people would expect a warning sign to be (e.g. classical OSHA sign format). The warning pictogram, saying no swimming is tiny and easily missed. Even the title, "danger: waterfall!" is in small print on a large background. Not only that, but there is a big picture of people happily playing on the banks of the river. Precisely, the thing that the sign is warning against!

The whole thing gives a confused message to a casual glance, and the main message is easily mis-interpreted as the polar opposite. The problem, is that warning signs need specifically to be designed so as to give the *correct* impression at first glance. This sign fails at that.
Click to expand...

Look closer at the picture, it is pretty easy to see that they are rushing to the aid of someone being swept away by the water.
 
MotionMan said:
I've been there and vividl recall the "you will die" part of the sign.

I have walked as close to the falls as I could get, took one look over the edge and confirmed that one would die from that fall.

Nonetheless, whenever we were there, there were always some teenagers in the water near the falls.

MotionMan
Click to expand...

Did you actually see them in the middle of the pool? So foolish, to many teens think they are invincible.
 
Ns1 said:
god works in mysterious ways
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this was your fault. God had to supply you with PBR, and to put the luck back in the bank, he made this kid over over the falls. You should be ashamed of yourself, with your frivolous desires.
 
lxskllr said:
I'm pretty sure this was your fault. God had to supply you with PBR, and to put the luck back in the bank, he made this kid over over the falls. You should be ashamed of yourself, with your frivolous desires.
Click to expand...

man I love my god.
 
A lot of people don't know how to swim in a current. The fastest way to shore is facing upstream, and towards shore by about 45°. Of course, the best thing is not swimming 150' above a dangerous falls. Shit happens, and it doesn't give you much room for recovery.
Click to expand...
You use the water's force to "squirt" you towards shore. It's also easier to maintain attitude. Facing directly towards shore wastes the water's energy, and you more easily tumble, or end up swimming downstream.

Edit:
and of course it keeps you from going downstream as you said. If you're trying to get to shore, you usually want to get to shore *there*, and not a couple hundred feet downstream. Even without danger being involved, drifting downstream requires you to walk to where you really want to be.
Click to expand...

This is mostly incorrect. If you swim at a 45 degree angle, it will take you 41% more time to reach the shore, assuming a uniform current in the river from center to the edge of the river. If the current is stronger in the center than it is nearer to the shore, than it'll take you more than 41% more time. If the current is increasing as you go downstream, the hydraulics sometimes set up such that you're not getting out of the center (been there, done that, and forced into a few hundred yards of class III whitewater while hanging on to the outside of my kayak - that sucked).

And, the water's force does not "squirt" you towards shore - take a physics class, please. Imagine a 30 foot wide conveyor belt that you're in the center of. Walking at a 45 degree angle toward the side is not going to use the "conveyor's force to squirt you towards shore."

In situations such as this that was presented, you're not going to be able to swim fast enough to maintain your place along the shoreline anyway.
 
DrPizza said:
This is mostly incorrect. If you swim at a 45 degree angle, it will take you 41% more time to reach the shore, assuming a uniform current in the river from center to the edge of the river. If the current is stronger in the center than it is nearer to the shore, than it'll take you more than 41% more time. If the current is increasing as you go downstream, the hydraulics sometimes set up such that you're not getting out of the center (been there, done that, and forced into a few hundred yards of class III whitewater while hanging on to the outside of my kayak - that sucked).

And, the water's force does not "squirt" you towards shore - take a physics class, please. Imagine a 30 foot wide conveyor belt that you're in the center of. Walking at a 45 degree angle toward the side is not going to use the "conveyor's force to squirt you towards shore."

In situations such as this that was presented, you're not going to be able to swim fast enough to maintain your place along the shoreline anyway.
Click to expand...
If a plane is on a giant treadmill, does it take off?
 
lxskllr said:
You use the water's force to "squirt" you towards shore. It's also easier to maintain attitude. Facing directly towards shore wastes the water's energy, and you more easily tumble, or end up swimming downstream.

Edit:
and of course it keeps you from going downstream as you said. If you're trying to get to shore, you usually want to get to shore *there*, and not a couple hundred feet downstream. Even without danger being involved, drifting downstream requires you to walk to where you really want to be.
Click to expand...

I think the fastest way would be almost directly towards shore, if anything slightly downstream so maybe you're getting pushed with some momentum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top